Preview
LANAI WINTER
Mailing Address & Physical Address:
2050 Springeld Drive Unit 157
Chico, CA 95928
’
(31 0) 902-91 54
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF BUTTE
10
ll
12
LANAI WINTER CASE NO. 19—CV-03058
13 Plaintiff/Petitioner, OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
PETITIONERS' VERIFIED PETITION
14
FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
15
BLUE HARBOR SENIOR LIVING,
16
Fog cm; may“ a
I
17 Defendant/Respondent,
'caFEz‘KE/WE
18
-AND-
19 [7‘ 2??”
20
CUIAB, SACRAMENTO, CA, M54
My, 3% [/VL
21 Defendant/Respondent.
22
23
W’WS‘EW
24
25
26
27
28
Lanai Wmter, am entitled-to-receive the unemployment benets
-|,
thatare due to me after leaving
my‘job for the following valid “Good cause” reasons as dened in Title 22, Section 1256—3(b), 'in
addition'to my Ethical and Moral Objections to working for Sunshine Villa Assisted Living and
Memory Care facility in Santa Cruz, California:
My “Good cause” reasons are legally classied to be in the category of being in a “hostile work
environment.” Point #1 being the nal straw that pushed me to take the reasonable action ofgiving
my. ofcial 2-week notice to management.
10
-1.My hours-were cut in half for the nal 2 weeks that l worked PRIOR to megiving my 2-week
ll
notice. 'Throughout‘my 33 months of employment, l'had‘never worked lessthan 2 shifts per week
12
13 (usually 3-4 shifts) unless lwas on vacation. As my na'l paycheck will conrm, lwas only
.14
scheduled to work 2 shifts over a two week period when I would normally have worked 4~8 shifts.
15
This nal insult followed letting my immediate supervisor know that l was available to work on Labor
16
l7 Day, Monday, September 3, 201 8. When our teams’ September schedule was distributed, l was
l8 not scheduled for Labor Day, NOR WAS | SCHEDULED for my regular Saturday and Sunday shifts,
19
September 1st & 2nd. ln fact,l was NOT ON THE SCHEDULE for 11 days straight. This was a
20
21 clear and undeniable indication to me that l was being pushed out of my job at Sunshine Villa.
22
2. l was chastised and shamed in my second year performance review by then manager, Terry
23
24 Ranuio, for giving extra attention and care to the Residents of the facility who asked for such. l was
25
not given a full 3% raise at that time due to her decision. This was entirely unjustied.
26
27
28
moi (2)
03mm? mmowveiMmerg‘i/maetrweww
CREE M0. [aka/”039%;
3. Iinformed my supervisor, Jatziry M., that I needed a pay raise in order to continue living in the
'Santa Cruz area or l would-need to move back to Chico and iive with my-mother. i-also told the
previous supervisor, Terri R., but s‘he'ie the company early in 2018 and nothing had been done on
“on call, ” which was not
my behalf. Bizarrely, Jatziry M. actually suggested that l switch to being
a solution to my nancial situation. Therefore, after nearly maxing out my credit cards during that
nal 6 months, lhad no choice but to give my 2-week notice and move out of the Santa Cruz area
and in with my mother in Chico, which is 225 miles away. Obviously l was not able to commute to
10 continue working at Sunshine Villa.
11
4. l witnessed gross-negligence and inequality of treatment for particular Residents due- to
12
13 management’ s understafng of Resident Assistants and the subsequent'hostile work environment
.14
that l was subjected to for approximately 20 months of the 33 months that l worked at the facility.
15
16
5. | also witnessed a Resident death occur in an apartment on the rst oor afterl had notied the
17
head nurse, Ann Modercin, that the new carpet and paint fumes were toxic and said Resident had
18
19 respiratory challenges. Mycomments were dismissed and the. Resident passedaway within. a week
20 to 10 days of said notication.
21
The situation at Sunshine Villa was denitely a-hostile work-environment and l could-no-longer take
22
the stressful, anxiety—inducing environment which led 'to me experiencing stress-induced insomnia
23
24 from long-term understafng at the facility and residents not‘being attended to in a timely manner. 'l
25
led a complaint with HIPPA on July 26, 201 8 {ofcially registered and led by Tene at (844)
26
538-8766 on July 27, 201 8} and nothing was done about the HlPPA violations that were taking
2'7
28 place at Sunshine Villa.
armcmagmwmwmmwam‘wme Mmrj‘wr‘re (e)
CAKE N0. Mei/439;?
Moreover, my moral and ethical beliefs were pushed beyond their limits while working at Sunshine
Villa and l could no longer continue working for an organization that allowed their elderly clientele to
suffer and die due to managerial negligence and where monetary considerations took priority over
human life.
My claim for unemployment benets from Sunshine Villa Assisted Living and Memory Care/Blue
Harbor Senior Living is justied and valid.
10
With truth and integrity,
ll Lanai VWnter, *A Reasonable Person with Ethical and Moral Standards
12
{*Using what the law calls a "reasonable person" standard. Essentially, you're entitled to
13
l4 unemployment benets ITany reasonable person standing in your shoes would have made the
15 same decision.[1 0]}
l6
l7
22 CA ADC § 1256-3BARCLAYS OFFlCIAL CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS. § 1256-3.
18
19 Voluntary Leaving -Good Cause -G.en_eral Principles. However. if one reason which is good
20 cause-is a substantial motivating-factor in causing the claimant toleave work, the claimant's leaving
21
is with good-cause.
22
"Good cause" is dened in Title 22, Section 1256-3(b):
23
24 "Good cause“ exists for leaving work, when a substantial motivating factor in causing the claimant
25
to leave work, at the time of leaving, whether or not work connected, is real, substantial, and
26
compelling and would cause a reasonable person genuinely desirous of retaining employment to
27
28 leave work under the same circumstances. Generally good cause for leaving work is decided on
Winarrem
$193M“ *VW‘IWS‘ VWQMW
gum ”if (49
CASE N0. {Chat/«(939587,
the facts at the time the claimant left work. Unless there is a timely connection between any alleged
reason for leaving and the-actual leaving, the employee has waived what might otherwise justify
termination of the employment relationship and has negated the required causal connection
between any given alleged reason for leaving and leaving. The claimant may submit several
reasons for leaving work, some of which, when considered individually, do not constitute good
cause. However, if one reason which is good cause is a substantial motivating factor in causing the
claimant to leave work, the claimant's leaving is with good cause.
10
ln California Portland Cement v. CUIAB (178 C.A.2d 263, 1960) the court held:
ll
12 [... . "{G]ood cause" and "personal reasons" are exible-phrases .. .. However, in whatever
13 context they appear, they connote, as minimum requirements, real circumstances, substantial
l4
reasons, objective conditions, palpable forces that operate to produce correlative results, adequate
15
excuses that will bear the test of reason, just grounds for action, and always the element of good
l6
17 faith."
18
19 "Compelling," in this sense merely means that the claimant's reasons for quitting exerted so much
20
pressure that it would have been unreasonable to expect him or her to remain with the employment.
21‘
The "pressures" exerted upon the claimant may be physical (as with health), moral, legal, domestic,
22
23 economic, etc.]
24
25
26
27
28.
amalgam;msuwarrl—orteé‘iham’tex‘chww l9”, Write of (5/
N0. {at/«(92058:
QASE
FOLLOWING IS AN EXCERPT TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA'S
EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT’ S UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFIT
DETERMINATION GUIDE:
Voluntary Quit 90 CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION BASED ON RELIGIOUS, ETHICAL, MORAL.
OR PHILOSOPHICAL BELIEFS
'C. Ethical, Moral, or Philosophical Objection
Objections to working conditions may also be based on personal beliefs which might be an integral
10
part of an individual's code of ethics, morals, or philosophy of life without being related to religious
ll
beliefs. Itwill generally be difcult to determine if the individual sincerely believes that performing a
12
l3 particular act would be wrong since ethical, moral, or philosophical beliefs are often unique to the
l4
individual and unrelated to the doctrine of any organization that might substantiate the sincerity of
15
the person's belief. Perhaps because of this difculty, there are no precedent decisions of the
16
17 Appeals Board or of the California courts which have directly addressed the question as to when
18
ethical, moral, or philosophical beliefs constitute genuine conscientious objections.
19
Title 22, Section 1256-1 5. (e), provides:
20
21 If a claimant reasonably believes that continued work will cause a reasonable foreseeable and
22
substantially probable sen‘ous n'sk to his or-her’morals, the claimant's leaving of work for this reason
23
'is with good cause. There is a reasonably foreseeable and substantially probable serious risk to
24
morals if the claimant is required to engage in immoral, dishonest, illegal, or unethical acts. .. .Prior
25
26 :to leaving the claimant must have objected to the employer or taken other reasonable steps to
2'7
preserve the job. .. . For example, a salesperson who unsuccessfully objects to the employer's
28
fiiEvMs’l/er‘cwm‘t
WWWErTeHi/LQAWFHF WW2”{’3 (g)
Cw: M0. wax/«03m
requirement that false and misleading sales pitches be used and thus leaves the work has good
cause for leaving. Similarly, a cannery inspector who unsuccessfully objects to the employer's
insistence that the inspector approve products known to be below standards set by law and thus
leaves the work has good cause for leaving.
lt isrecognized that there are situations which are not discussed elsewhere in the BDG, where the
claimant's eligibility is contingent on establishing whether a restriction based on ethical or
philosophical beliefs can‘be attributed to a bona de conscientious objection. For such cases, the
10
following factors should be considered:
ll
1. Does the claimantcontend'that working under the’objectionable conditions would conict with
12
13 his/her basic convictions or is the claimant's objection based primarily on other personal reasons?
l4
2. ls the claimant's conduct consistent with his/her alleged beliefs?
l5
3. Does the claimant belong to or support any organization which advocates or opposes the
16
17 principles upon which his/her alleged beliefs are based? (Such an afliation is not required, but
18
would indicate that the claimant's beliefs are sincerely held.)
19
As with religious objection, if the. claimant can establish a "sincerely held belief" and has taken
2O
21 reasonable steps to preserve the job, he or she is eligible under Section 1256.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
07m mganwmsiwwrol teliwm’wdwhmm rmgmy)
Preview
LANAI WINTER Mailing Address & Physical Address: 2050 Springeld Drive Unit 157 Chico, CA 95928 ’ (31 0) 902-91 54 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF BUTTE 10 ll 12 LANAI WINTER CASE NO. 19—CV-03058 13 Plaintiff/Petitioner, OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS' VERIFIED PETITION 14 FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 15 BLUE HARBOR SENIOR LIVING, 16 Fog cm; may“ a I 17 Defendant/Respondent, 'caFEz‘KE/WE 18 -AND- 19 [7‘ 2??” 20 CUIAB, SACRAMENTO, CA, M54 My, 3% [/VL 21 Defendant/Respondent. 22 23 W’WS‘EW 24 25 26 27 28 Lanai Wmter, am entitled-to-receive the unemployment benets -|, thatare due to me after leaving my‘job for the following valid “Good cause” reasons as dened in Title 22, Section 1256—3(b), 'in addition'to my Ethical and Moral Objections to working for Sunshine Villa Assisted Living and Memory Care facility in Santa Cruz, California: My “Good cause” reasons are legally classied to be in the category of being in a “hostile work environment.” Point #1 being the nal straw that pushed me to take the reasonable action ofgiving my. ofcial 2-week notice to management. 10 -1.My hours-were cut in half for the nal 2 weeks that l worked PRIOR to megiving my 2-week ll notice. 'Throughout‘my 33 months of employment, l'had‘never worked lessthan 2 shifts per week 12 13 (usually 3-4 shifts) unless lwas on vacation. As my na'l paycheck will conrm, lwas only .14 scheduled to work 2 shifts over a two week period when I would normally have worked 4~8 shifts. 15 This nal insult followed letting my immediate supervisor know that l was available to work on Labor 16 l7 Day, Monday, September 3, 201 8. When our teams’ September schedule was distributed, l was l8 not scheduled for Labor Day, NOR WAS | SCHEDULED for my regular Saturday and Sunday shifts, 19 September 1st & 2nd. ln fact,l was NOT ON THE SCHEDULE for 11 days straight. This was a 20 21 clear and undeniable indication to me that l was being pushed out of my job at Sunshine Villa. 22 2. l was chastised and shamed in my second year performance review by then manager, Terry 23 24 Ranuio, for giving extra attention and care to the Residents of the facility who asked for such. l was 25 not given a full 3% raise at that time due to her decision. This was entirely unjustied. 26 27 28 moi (2) 03mm? mmowveiMmerg‘i/maetrweww CREE M0. [aka/”039%; 3. Iinformed my supervisor, Jatziry M., that I needed a pay raise in order to continue living in the 'Santa Cruz area or l would-need to move back to Chico and iive with my-mother. i-also told the previous supervisor, Terri R., but s‘he'ie the company early in 2018 and nothing had been done on “on call, ” which was not my behalf. Bizarrely, Jatziry M. actually suggested that l switch to being a solution to my nancial situation. Therefore, after nearly maxing out my credit cards during that nal 6 months, lhad no choice but to give my 2-week notice and move out of the Santa Cruz area and in with my mother in Chico, which is 225 miles away. Obviously l was not able to commute to 10 continue working at Sunshine Villa. 11 4. l witnessed gross-negligence and inequality of treatment for particular Residents due- to 12 13 management’ s understafng of Resident Assistants and the subsequent'hostile work environment .14 that l was subjected to for approximately 20 months of the 33 months that l worked at the facility. 15 16 5. | also witnessed a Resident death occur in an apartment on the rst oor afterl had notied the 17 head nurse, Ann Modercin, that the new carpet and paint fumes were toxic and said Resident had 18 19 respiratory challenges. Mycomments were dismissed and the. Resident passedaway within. a week 20 to 10 days of said notication. 21 The situation at Sunshine Villa was denitely a-hostile work-environment and l could-no-longer take 22 the stressful, anxiety—inducing environment which led 'to me experiencing stress-induced insomnia 23 24 from long-term understafng at the facility and residents not‘being attended to in a timely manner. 'l 25 led a complaint with HIPPA on July 26, 201 8 {ofcially registered and led by Tene at (844) 26 538-8766 on July 27, 201 8} and nothing was done about the HlPPA violations that were taking 2'7 28 place at Sunshine Villa. armcmagmwmwmmwam‘wme Mmrj‘wr‘re (e) CAKE N0. Mei/439;? Moreover, my moral and ethical beliefs were pushed beyond their limits while working at Sunshine Villa and l could no longer continue working for an organization that allowed their elderly clientele to suffer and die due to managerial negligence and where monetary considerations took priority over human life. My claim for unemployment benets from Sunshine Villa Assisted Living and Memory Care/Blue Harbor Senior Living is justied and valid. 10 With truth and integrity, ll Lanai VWnter, *A Reasonable Person with Ethical and Moral Standards 12 {*Using what the law calls a "reasonable person" standard. Essentially, you're entitled to 13 l4 unemployment benets ITany reasonable person standing in your shoes would have made the 15 same decision.[1 0]} l6 l7 22 CA ADC § 1256-3BARCLAYS OFFlCIAL CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS. § 1256-3. 18 19 Voluntary Leaving -Good Cause -G.en_eral Principles. However. if one reason which is good 20 cause-is a substantial motivating-factor in causing the claimant toleave work, the claimant's leaving 21 is with good-cause. 22 "Good cause" is dened in Title 22, Section 1256-3(b): 23 24 "Good cause“ exists for leaving work, when a substantial motivating factor in causing the claimant 25 to leave work, at the time of leaving, whether or not work connected, is real, substantial, and 26 compelling and would cause a reasonable person genuinely desirous of retaining employment to 27 28 leave work under the same circumstances. Generally good cause for leaving work is decided on Winarrem $193M“ *VW‘IWS‘ VWQMW gum ”if (49 CASE N0. {Chat/«(939587, the facts at the time the claimant left work. Unless there is a timely connection between any alleged reason for leaving and the-actual leaving, the employee has waived what might otherwise justify termination of the employment relationship and has negated the required causal connection between any given alleged reason for leaving and leaving. The claimant may submit several reasons for leaving work, some of which, when considered individually, do not constitute good cause. However, if one reason which is good cause is a substantial motivating factor in causing the claimant to leave work, the claimant's leaving is with good cause. 10 ln California Portland Cement v. CUIAB (178 C.A.2d 263, 1960) the court held: ll 12 [... . "{G]ood cause" and "personal reasons" are exible-phrases .. .. However, in whatever 13 context they appear, they connote, as minimum requirements, real circumstances, substantial l4 reasons, objective conditions, palpable forces that operate to produce correlative results, adequate 15 excuses that will bear the test of reason, just grounds for action, and always the element of good l6 17 faith." 18 19 "Compelling," in this sense merely means that the claimant's reasons for quitting exerted so much 20 pressure that it would have been unreasonable to expect him or her to remain with the employment. 21‘ The "pressures" exerted upon the claimant may be physical (as with health), moral, legal, domestic, 22 23 economic, etc.] 24 25 26 27 28. amalgam;msuwarrl—orteé‘iham’tex‘chww l9”, Write of (5/ N0. {at/«(92058: QASE FOLLOWING IS AN EXCERPT TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA'S EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT’ S UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFIT DETERMINATION GUIDE: Voluntary Quit 90 CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION BASED ON RELIGIOUS, ETHICAL, MORAL. OR PHILOSOPHICAL BELIEFS 'C. Ethical, Moral, or Philosophical Objection Objections to working conditions may also be based on personal beliefs which might be an integral 10 part of an individual's code of ethics, morals, or philosophy of life without being related to religious ll beliefs. Itwill generally be difcult to determine if the individual sincerely believes that performing a 12 l3 particular act would be wrong since ethical, moral, or philosophical beliefs are often unique to the l4 individual and unrelated to the doctrine of any organization that might substantiate the sincerity of 15 the person's belief. Perhaps because of this difculty, there are no precedent decisions of the 16 17 Appeals Board or of the California courts which have directly addressed the question as to when 18 ethical, moral, or philosophical beliefs constitute genuine conscientious objections. 19 Title 22, Section 1256-1 5. (e), provides: 20 21 If a claimant reasonably believes that continued work will cause a reasonable foreseeable and 22 substantially probable sen‘ous n'sk to his or-her’morals, the claimant's leaving of work for this reason 23 'is with good cause. There is a reasonably foreseeable and substantially probable serious risk to 24 morals if the claimant is required to engage in immoral, dishonest, illegal, or unethical acts. .. .Prior 25 26 :to leaving the claimant must have objected to the employer or taken other reasonable steps to 2'7 preserve the job. .. . For example, a salesperson who unsuccessfully objects to the employer's 28 fiiEvMs’l/er‘cwm‘t WWWErTeHi/LQAWFHF WW2”{’3 (g) Cw: M0. wax/«03m requirement that false and misleading sales pitches be used and thus leaves the work has good cause for leaving. Similarly, a cannery inspector who unsuccessfully objects to the employer's insistence that the inspector approve products known to be below standards set by law and thus leaves the work has good cause for leaving. lt isrecognized that there are situations which are not discussed elsewhere in the BDG, where the claimant's eligibility is contingent on establishing whether a restriction based on ethical or philosophical beliefs can‘be attributed to a bona de conscientious objection. For such cases, the 10 following factors should be considered: ll 1. Does the claimantcontend'that working under the’objectionable conditions would conict with 12 13 his/her basic convictions or is the claimant's objection based primarily on other personal reasons? l4 2. ls the claimant's conduct consistent with his/her alleged beliefs? l5 3. Does the claimant belong to or support any organization which advocates or opposes the 16 17 principles upon which his/her alleged beliefs are based? (Such an afliation is not required, but 18 would indicate that the claimant's beliefs are sincerely held.) 19 As with religious objection, if the. claimant can establish a "sincerely held belief" and has taken 2O 21 reasonable steps to preserve the job, he or she is eligible under Section 1256. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 07m mganwmsiwwrol teliwm’wdwhmm rmgmy)